• Dear Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church

    Last weekend I signed the following letter which was sent to the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. It was organised by a group of clergy in the diocese of Edinburgh. The fifty or so signatories were those who happened to learn of this over a couple of days last weekend. There will no doubt be others who would have wanted to sign it who simply didn’t hear about it.

    I expect that others may also post this on their own blogs. I’m not going to comment on it as I think it speaks for itself, other than to thank those who organised it for doing so. They and those who signed it restore my hope at this time.

    Dear Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church,

    We read with dismay the Guidance for Clergy and Lay Readers in the light of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014.

    We appreciate that we are bound by the law, and that until our canons are changed, we cannot legally perform same-sex marriages. However, we are disappointed by both the timing and the tone of the document. We have been urged by you to enter into ‘cascade conversations’ in a spirit of open and sensitive listening with people of all views on this matter. This document only makes this process much harder for us, even impossible for some. Far from acknowledging the reality of differing experience and views in the church, it gives the impression of a definitive answer to the question we have yet to discuss or debate. The document ought to make it clear that the restrictions it describes may be temporary, if the church decides to change its canons. Because of the confusion created by this document, we now believe that such canonical change should be decided in Synod as soon as possible.

    But we were especially dismayed by the section of the document which refers to clergy, lay readers, and ordinands, should they be in a same-sex relationship and wish to be married. In particular, we find the warnings to ordinands, both currently training and those who might be training in the future, to be unrepresentative of the generous and communal characteristics of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Even though our church has not yet agreed to solemnise same-sex marriages, they will nevertheless become a civil institution which we will recognise like everyone else under the law. It is our firm belief therefore that any prohibition on obtaining a civil marriage is outwith the moral and canonical authority of a bishop.

    We acknowledge that this process is one which creates anxiety for all church leaders, and bishops in particular. We empathise with the difficult situation that you as bishops are in, and reaffirm our desire to support you in your leadership of our church, and as fellow members of it.

    Nevertheless, some of us are now uncomfortable about solemnising marriages at all until such time as all can be treated equally, and all of us will continue to feel morally compromised in our ministries, and wish to make clear our continuing commitment to affirm and support all people in our church, and to recognise and rejoice in all marriages, of whatever sexual orientation, as true signs of the love of God in Christ.

    Yours sincerely,
    Revd Carrie Applegath,
    Revd Philip Blackledge,
    Revd Maurice Houston,
    Revd Canon John McLuckie,
    Revd Canon Ian Paton,
    Revd Kate Reynolds,
    Revd Martin Robson,
    Revd Malcolm Aldcroft,
    Dr Darlene Bird (lay reader),
    Revd Jim Benton-Evans,
    Revd Cedric L. Blakey,
    Revd Andrew Bowyer,
    Revd Canon Bill Brockie,
    Revd Tony Bryer,
    Revd Steve Butler,
    Revd Christine Barclay,
    Revd Lynsay M Downes,
    Revd Markus Dünzkofer,
    Revd Canon Anne Dyer,
    Revd Janet Dyer,
    Revd Jennifer Edie,
    Revd John L Evans,
    Revd Samantha Ferguson,
    The Revd Canon Zachary Fleetwood,
    Kennedy Fraser,
    Revd Kirstin Freeman,
    Revd Frances Forshaw,
    Revd Ruth Green,
    Revd Bob Gould,
    Very Revd Kelvin Holdsworth,
    Revd Ruth Innes,
    Revd Ken Webb,
    Rev’d Canon Mel Langille,
    Revd Kenny Macaulay,
    Revd Simon Mackenzie,
    Revd Duncan MacLaren,
    Very Revd Nikki McNelly,
    Very Revd Jim Mein,
    Revd Nicola Moll,
    Revd Bryan Owen,
    Revd Canon Clifford Piper,
    Revd Donald Reid,
    Revd Colin Reed,
    Revd Canon John Richardson,
    Revd Malcolm Richardson,
    The Revd Gareth J M Saunders,
    Very Revd Alison J Simpson,
    Very Revd Andrew Swift,
    Kate Sainsbury (lay reader),
    Patsy Thomson (lay reader),
    Prof Revd Annalu Waller

    Revd John Penman,
    Revd Tim Morris,
    Revd Anna Garvey,
    Revd Bill Eilliot.

7 responses to “10 Discussion Points about the Church and Virtual Reality”

  1. Tim Avatar

    Hear here. (Especially the evolutionary point.)

  2. chris Avatar

    …or even “hear hear”! Very pertinent in my neck of the woods, where the cyber-poor and the cyber-dinosaurs have their abode (and the second category is not necessarily related to the first other than in outcome).

  3. Pam Smith Avatar

    Excellent points.

    I’ve been working in online Christian communities quite a while, and I’ve observed a couple of things that I think replicate mistakes in offline evangelism:

    1) ‘Success’ is equated with numbers of followers not the quality of the interactions. So a lot of energy can be put into building up a following regardless of who the followers are. This often means attracting Christians who aren’t normally very interested in being online to your online project, rather than trying to make your online Christian project appealing to people who spend a lot of time online.

    2) Events that are geared towards using the online media for evangelism and outreach almost always end up being evangelistic about online media not about Christianity

  4. Steve Murray Avatar
    Steve Murray

    I can’t access the blog to post comments – does this mean cyberpoverty may also stem from corporate repression? [These comments posted by Kelvin by request via email]

    My ‘cyberpoverty’ is a deliberate choice – I sit in front of a computer all day so have deliberately chosen not to be online at home. Is this really a societal evil … ?

    The web is already beset by megaphones and proverbial empty vessels can make the most noise – how do we distinguish between volume and quality – I can follow thousands of religious twitterings but who filters out the distortion? – c.f. The Guardian which is in the process of shedding journalists and filling its pages with ‘comment is free’ – aye, and you get what you pay for . . .

    You do already provide ministries for the cyberpoor – they’re called churches – they have gravitas, space for quiet reflection, sanctuary from information overload, and a community – long may they continue.

    Will there be a paywall to fund the virtual church – or will it be forced to rely on commercial sponsorship? A reading from the book of Numbers, brought to you in association with Lehman Brothers.

  5. […] Kelvin is asking good questions again about the theology and praxis of The Church and Virtual Reality.  He sets out questions enough for several doctoral thesis, but it was this that caught my eye.  […]

  6. Eric Stoddart Avatar
    Eric Stoddart

    Two important aspects that I suggest need to be added to your list, Kelvin.
    (a) the monetarisation of cyberspace, especially of social networking (making money out of ‘friendship’ is a big business), and
    (b) the effects of social networking as a means of surveillance (that’s lateral, between friends, as well as by mega-corporations); how is our behaviour being modified by the collection of, and categorisation by, our personal data?

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Thanks, Eric, yes.

    And important to recognise that the church is in the business of calling on people in relationship with it to cough up money too. It isn’t just big business.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • I speak:

    Saying that I will be voting no.

  • Michael Partridge:

    Wants Faith and Order board to keep the other options open. Should go into this prepapred to consider all kinds of answers

  • Colin Sibley:

    Feels an increasing sene of unease. Supports the motion as it would othewise mean closing the door. Wants us to be clear that this does not mean that we will sign up in the end. Asks if this creates a second class of communion membership which would lead to a split in communion. Also a…

  • Bob Harley:

    Supports the motion. Wants us to give the Anglican Covenant a try.